Project Meeting 2024.08.27

Agenda

• Administrative Transition
  • AMPO option (Mark Moran)
  • Starting something new and independent options (Joe C)
  • Decentralized option (Alex B)

Action Items

• Joe and Alex are working on a list of what AMPO is doing, so we can understand requirements
• Guy to talk to AASHTO about the viability of them as an administrative home for ActivitySim
• Joe to ask Brian Gardner for more information about the viability of the Transportation Pooled Fund and/or Volpe as an administrative home for ActivitySim
• Alex to talk to TTI about the viability of them as an administrative home for ActivitySim
• Flavia to reach out to RAND for more information about the viability of them as an administrative home for ActivitySim
• Rebekah Straub to reach out to Alan Horowitz for information about options for an administrative home for ActivitySim

Meeting Notes - Administrative Home of ActivitySim

General Comments

• Do we want just administrative support or evangelization/advocacy for ActivitySim?
• What are the requirements that we are looking for? What are some key criteria/considerations for making this decision?
  • Must be legally able to can contract with a variety of agencies
  • Must be able to accept and disperse funds
  • Need to consider whether the arrangement would be enduring or has a time limit (group doesn’t want to explore options with a time limit)
  • Joe and Alex are working on a list of what AMPO is doing, so we can understand requirements

Options

• Contract with another organization - similar to the current AMPO arrangement
  • AMPO
  • TPF (Transportation Pooled Fund)
    • Note there may be some misinformation here - but some have heard that VisionEval and TMIP-EMAT efforts may be winding down and the structure that they are operating in now will be done in 3-5 years.
    • EMAT has be reliant on FHWA, so there aren't any pooled funds right now. Marty is championing the possibility of pooled funds so that development could potentially not be solely dependent on FHWA’s funding.
    • Pooled fund is mostly for state DOTs and larger MPOs, thought it was well-established and not going away.
    • Joe C to ask Brian Gardner more about this option
  • University, with a research center
    • Con: Universities can be extremely hard to work with
    • Con: Research agreements and data sharing contracts are a struggle, very bureaucratic
    • Con: Doesn’t solve concern about someone else deciding to sunset this work. Universities are always reorganizing.
    • Con: Universities will not cede authority on what the work should be.
    • Con: Universities takes a large overhead on research work (something like 50%, as an example in someone’s experience)
    • **Alex **to follow up with TTI
  • AMPO
    • Pro: they were pretty hands off and felt comfortable with the trademarking and other things
    • Info: Were paying them 8%, they were going to bump it up to 10% plus ODCs which was about $60k.
    • Some MPO Executive Directors are reaching out to AMPO to discuss further.
  • AASHTO
    • **Guy **to reach out to Anna
  • RAND
    • Worth talking to them to find out to find out if its conceptually possible and what would be the % cut on admin services
    • Would it be like AMPO with a Board of Directors that we don’t have a relationship with and they could decide to stop supporting?
    • **Flavia **to reach out
  • Alan Horowitz
    • Alan has QRS Software, could be worth reaching out to him for suggestions/advice
    • Rebekah to reach out
  • Volpe
    • Scott Smith or Brian Gardner are potential points of contact.
    • Joe C to follow-up.
  • NARC
    • ARC and MWCOG are members, but less relationship with NARC than AMPO, so this seems unlikely.
• Self-organized option
  • Pro: Could be home for things other than ActivitySim but setting it up so that it can host other projects (like VisionEval and/or TMIP-EMAT)
  • Con: Would need administrative staff. There are ways around that – we could purchase services.
  • Con: We would need to form a non-profit, set by-laws, board elections, etc. - all the org start up stuff. Could we cut this effort if we went to Zephyr that’s already done this?
  • Con: There could be cash flow issues
    • We might need to pay admin staff before receiving payments from partners
    • We could get audited, which would require cash on hand, or other unanticipated costs could come up.
    • A workaround might be to build a contingency fund, maybe hold off on consulting service until that fund is established.
• Hybrid (something like independent but also utilizing another organization/entity)
  • Zephyr
    • Con: Does not have any staff to be able to handle the administrative side. The volunteer model is not good for anything with real work loads and deadlines.
    • Pro: Currently is a non-profit (but do we have to have a research foundation as well?)
    • Pro: Missions are well aligned